Palestinian PM: We'll form de facto state by 2011

The stance in question had to do with the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, which you claimed - without any substantiation - is exaggerated.

But you guys need to get away from all this nonsense about "rights" and "endowments" and such. This is geopolitics, not civics class. There is no impartial cosmic judge who is going to come down and enforce these notions on anyone.

These formulations are simply pretenses for you to feel justified in taking sides in a war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spidergoat is a Jew and all Jews have the rights to an Israeli citizenship .
Palestinians are refugees in their own backyards .
This is justice of the international community by by the US.
Hahaha.........!.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if they decided to live in peace and not steal land from peaceful people they would have to fight anybody.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in other words to you might makes right and humanity hasn't decided to change how the world works in 8000 years

 

No, we're discussing how you say it should work. And you are explicit that historical claims expire along with evidence of them. So what, in your theory of historical ethnocentric land rights, prevents Israel from literally eradicating the Palestinian claim (given sufficient time, of course)?

 

You've been watching Uris' Exodus?

 

Nothing.

 

Fair enough. There is a lot of evidence that has come to light due to revisionism, but that debate is for a new thread.

Yes, of course, but one can hold a position nonetheless. As you do.

That is an unfair assumption. One needs no pretenses, to justify condemning, what is patently an extremely unjust situation.

 

No, what I'm saying is that there is no such thing as "right" at the geopolitical level. "Might" is the only thing affecting anything, there.

To be more specific: these now-common ideas about ethnically-defined nations having historical rights to homelands are quite new, and very problematic. And not just in Israel: it took hundreds of years of brutal warfare to get Europe into a condition where you could divide people up into ethnic nation states and get something resembling a stable political order.

And THAT is the reason that the concept of a national right to a homeland took off: not because it is "right," but because the system it legitimizes is sufficiently powerful to preclude alternatives.

You'd get a much more just, consistent, practical theory of territorial rights if you just stuck to individual human rights, and so granted everyone the right to freely travel, live, own property and work anywhere they want. But the system of nation-states would never tolerate that, since it would end their power and control. And since they are sufficiently powerful to prevent such a turn of events, it doesn't happen.

The trouble is when people mistake the persistence and strength of the system of nation-states for righteousness of its justifying theory. This is backwards, and applying it to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict illustrates that. The national homeland theory only results in a just world order if every nation already has an undisputed homeland. It provides no answers for disputed cases, resulting in war. And it has radically destabilizing effects when introduced into regions without a long history of national identification and sorting-out of national boundaries.

 

So your saying fuck international law?

 

True, this is the system that to some extent the native Americans had and the Palestinians. The nation state was imposed on both of them.

 

A Cesspool thread, I would hope.

Well of course. The question is whether one should do so.

Because as soon as you decide that the cause of "justice" is on one side of an international territorial dispute, and advocate based on that, you have taken sides in a war. You are favoring the violent imposition of your vision of justice onto parties that do not accept it.

Which isn't always a bad thing. But it's important to be honest with everyone - especially yourself - about the violent, ideological nature of your project.

The pretense is in the presentation of yourself as benign, when you are in fact advocating violence.

 

At this point, I'm saying fuck your reductive provocations.

 

Again you illustrate your near-total ignorance of Native American history.

And it was not the Palestinians that had such a system - there was no such nation, back then - but the Ottomans. And so in the wake of their collapse, the nation-state filled the void in the Middle East.

And the system I was referring to was much grander than anything afforded by the Ottoman's: every person on Earth should be free to live, trade and work anywhere on Earth that they like. It is not possible for any one ethnic group to "have" a system like that, since it necessarily encompasses all groups.

 

Hey your the one who said we should ignore international law that does recognize the rights of people. You cannot deny you wish to ignore the framework of international law that recognizes the rights of people. If you can't handle your ideas being mocked or criticized don't voice them.

 

Nope.

You cannot successfully paraphrase (or, presumably, even parse) my statements.

I can handle it fine, and I also know when a "critic" isn't worth a serious reply.

If you can't handle your reductive provocations being called what they are, then don't voice them.

 

You'd probably find that the Ottoman system [Millet system as they called it] was the best workable approximation [minus the Caliph]

 

Wrong! a Nation State was offered the Arabs of Palestine U.N. 181, had a Palestinian State along side a Jewish State, and the Arabs rejected it in favor of a war to take it all, and lost, it was the Arabs who rejected U.N. 181 and the State of Palestine.

Remember who occupied the West Bank after the 1948 War? Jordan!! and did they set up a Palestinian State? NO!!

Egypt occupied the Gaza after the 1948 War, not the Israelis, and Egypt didn't establish a Palestinian State when it had the chance either, so again who killed the State of Palestine?

Not the Israelis, the Arabs, Egypt and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Palestinian Mandate, Palestine. if you use your logic, the home of the Palestinians.

 

Would you accept it if a foreign refugee was given 57% of your land and home?

 

Quite the reverse, actually: North Africa, the Eastern Roman Empire, Christian Assyria, Iraq, Egypt, the Balkans, even Spain.

Also patently false.

Are the Jews the blood suckers or the Christians? If so, aren't we supposed to be the descendants of mosquitoes rather than apes and pigs? Or, wait a second, which am I then? The descendant of apes or pigs? Where's spidergoat? We should work this out. Confusing.